| Message ID | 201106260056.32221.rjw@sisk.pl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > One of the roles of the PM core is to prevent different PM callbacks > executed for the same device object from racing with each other. > Unfortunately, after commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > (PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend) > runtime PM callbacks may be executed concurrently with system > suspend/resume callbacks for the same device. ... > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > +The PM core does its best to reduce the probability of race conditions between > +the runtime PM and system suspend/resume (and hibernation) callbacks by carrying > +out the following operations: > + > + * During system suspend it acquires a runtime PM reference to every device > + and resume it if there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before > + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. In addition to > + that it disables the runtime PM framework for every device right after > + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. > + > + * During system resume it enables the runtime PM framework for all devices > + right before executing the subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. > + Additionally, it drops references to all devices right after executing the > + subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. I think it would be better to be a little more specific here. Instead of "acquires a runtime PM reference", say "calls pm_runtime_get_noresume()". Or at least, say "increments the run-time usage counter". Likewise, instead of "disables the runtime PM framework", say "calls pm_runtime_disable()" or at least "increments power.disable_depth". Hmmm, come to think of it... The documentation for pm_runtime_enable() and pm_runtime_disable() fails to mention power.disable_depth, which is a surprising omission. In particular, the description of pm_runtime_enable() is wrong because it ignores the possibility of nested disables. Alan Stern
Hi Rafael, On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:31 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > +suspend callbacks to be lost. Could you explain why the above is that "this will not cause any run-time suspend callbacks to be lost"? Looks like it should be "this will not cause any run-time suspend callbacks to be called", but not sure. thanks,
On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi Rafael, > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:31 +0200 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > > +suspend callbacks to be lost. > > Could you explain why the above is that "this will not cause any run-time suspend > callbacks to be lost"? > > Looks like it should be "this will not cause any run-time suspend callbacks to > be called", but not sure. You're right the wording is not perfect. The problem is that if it's done this way without incrementing the usage counter beforehand, the status may change to "suspended" right before the pm_runtime_set_active() and then the new status will not reflect the actual state of the device. So, it may be better to say "Hence disabling runtime PM temporarily like this will not cause the runtime PM status of the device to conflict with the actual device state". Alan, what do you think? Rafael
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:31 +0200 > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > > > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > > > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > > > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > > > +suspend callbacks to be lost. > > > > Could you explain why the above is that "this will not cause any run-time suspend > > callbacks to be lost"? > > > > Looks like it should be "this will not cause any run-time suspend callbacks to > > be called", but not sure. > > You're right the wording is not perfect. The problem is that if it's done > this way without incrementing the usage counter beforehand, the status may > change to "suspended" right before the pm_runtime_set_active() and then the > new status will not reflect the actual state of the device. > > So, it may be better to say "Hence disabling runtime PM temporarily like this > will not cause the runtime PM status of the device to conflict with the actual > device state". > > Alan, what do you think? How about: "... will not cause any runtime suspend attempts to be permanently lost. If the usage count goes to zero following the return of the ->resume() callback, the ->runtime_idle() callback will be invoked as usual." Alan Stern
On Wednesday, June 29, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rafael, > > > > > > On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 00:56:31 +0200 > > > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > > > > > > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > > > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > > > > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > > > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > > > > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > > > > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > > > > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > > > > +suspend callbacks to be lost. > > > > > > Could you explain why the above is that "this will not cause any run-time suspend > > > callbacks to be lost"? > > > > > > Looks like it should be "this will not cause any run-time suspend callbacks to > > > be called", but not sure. > > > > You're right the wording is not perfect. The problem is that if it's done > > this way without incrementing the usage counter beforehand, the status may > > change to "suspended" right before the pm_runtime_set_active() and then the > > new status will not reflect the actual state of the device. > > > > So, it may be better to say "Hence disabling runtime PM temporarily like this > > will not cause the runtime PM status of the device to conflict with the actual > > device state". > > > > Alan, what do you think? > > How about: "... will not cause any runtime suspend attempts to be > permanently lost. If the usage count goes to zero following the return > of the ->resume() callback, the ->runtime_idle() callback will be > invoked as usual." That's better, thanks! Rafael
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > One of the roles of the PM core is to prevent different PM callbacks > executed for the same device object from racing with each other. > Unfortunately, after commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > (PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend) > runtime PM callbacks may be executed concurrently with system > suspend/resume callbacks for the same device. > > The main reason for commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > was that some subsystems and device drivers wanted to use runtime PM > helpers, pm_runtime_suspend() and pm_runtime_put_sync() in > particular, for carrying out the suspend of devices in their > .suspend() callbacks. However, as it's been determined recently, > there are multiple reasons not to do so, inlcuding: > > * The caller really doesn't control the runtime PM usage counters, > because user space can access them through sysfs and effectively > block runtime PM. That means using pm_runtime_suspend() or > pm_runtime_get_sync() to suspend devices during system suspend > may or may not work. > > * If a driver calls pm_runtime_suspend() from its .suspend() > callback, it causes the subsystem's .runtime_suspend() callback to > be executed, which leads to the call sequence: > > subsys->suspend(dev) > driver->suspend(dev) > pm_runtime_suspend(dev) > subsys->runtime_suspend(dev) > > recursive from the subsystem's point of view. For some subsystems > that may actually work (e.g. the platform bus type), but for some > it will fail in a rather spectacular fashion (e.g. PCI). In each > case it means a layering violation. > > * Both the subsystem and the driver can provide .suspend_noirq() > callbacks for system suspend that can do whatever the > .runtime_suspend() callbacks do just fine, so it really isn't > necessary to call pm_runtime_suspend() during system suspend. > > * The runtime PM's handling of wakeup devices is usually different > from the system suspend's one, so .runtime_suspend() may simply be > inappropriate for system suspend. > > * System suspend is supposed to work even if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is > unset. > > * The runtime PM workqueue is frozen before system suspend, so if > whatever the driver is going to do during system suspend depends > on it, that simply won't work. Thanks for the thorough description of all these reasons. > Still, there is a good reason to allow pm_runtime_resume() to > succeed during system suspend and resume (for instance, some > subsystems and device drivers may legitimately use it to ensure that > their devices are in full-power states before suspending them). > Moreover, there is no reason to prevent runtime PM callbacks from > being executed in parallel with the system suspend/resume .prepare() > and .complete() callbacks and the code removed by commit > e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 went too far in this > respect. On the other hand, runtime PM callbacks, including > .runtime_resume(), must not be executed during system suspend's > "late" stage of suspending devices and during system resume's "early" > device resume stage. > > Taking all of the above into consideration, make the PM core > acquire a runtime PM reference to every device and resume it if > there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before executing > the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. Make the PM core > drop references to all devices right after executing the > subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. Additionally, > make the PM core disable the runtime PM framework for all devices > during system suspend, after executing the subsystem-level .suspend() > callbacks for them, and enable the runtime PM framework for all > devices during system resume, right before executing the > subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> OK, I'm convinced. :) Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> Minor documentation comment below... > Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/base/power/main.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c > @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ static int legacy_resume(struct device * > static int device_resume(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async) > { > int error = 0; > + bool put = false; > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev); > TRACE_RESUME(0); > @@ -521,6 +522,9 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * > if (!dev->power.is_suspended) > goto Unlock; > > + pm_runtime_enable(dev); > + put = true; > + > if (dev->pm_domain) { > pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); > error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); > @@ -563,6 +567,10 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * > complete_all(&dev->power.completion); > > TRACE_RESUME(error); > + > + if (put) > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > + > return error; > } > > @@ -843,16 +851,22 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic > int error = 0; > > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async); > - device_lock(dev); > > if (async_error) > - goto Unlock; > + return 0; > + > + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev); > + if (pm_runtime_barrier(dev) && device_may_wakeup(dev)) > + pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0); > if (pm_wakeup_pending()) { > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > async_error = -EBUSY; > - goto Unlock; > + return 0; > } > > + device_lock(dev); > + > if (dev->pm_domain) { > pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); > error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); > @@ -890,12 +904,15 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic > End: > dev->power.is_suspended = !error; > > - Unlock: > device_unlock(dev); > complete_all(&dev->power.completion); > > - if (error) > + if (error) { > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > async_error = error; > + } else if (dev->power.is_suspended) { > + __pm_runtime_disable(dev, false); > + } > > return error; > } > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > +suspend callbacks to be lost. > + > On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware > or hardware operation. Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power > states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way. Then, the system sleep > @@ -579,6 +584,21 @@ place (in particular, if the system is n > be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system > suspend began in the suspended state. > > +The PM core does its best to reduce the probability of race conditions between > +the runtime PM and system suspend/resume (and hibernation) callbacks by carrying > +out the following operations: > + > + * During system suspend it acquires a runtime PM reference to every device > + and resume it if there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before minor: s/resume/resumes/ > + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. In addition to > + that it disables the runtime PM framework for every device right after > + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. > + > + * During system resume it enables the runtime PM framework for all devices > + right before executing the subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. > + Additionally, it drops references to all devices right after executing the > + subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. > + > 7. Generic subsystem callbacks > > Subsystems may wish to conserve code space by using the set of generic power Kevin
Hi, On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > > > One of the roles of the PM core is to prevent different PM callbacks > > executed for the same device object from racing with each other. > > Unfortunately, after commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > > (PM: Allow pm_runtime_suspend() to succeed during system suspend) > > runtime PM callbacks may be executed concurrently with system > > suspend/resume callbacks for the same device. > > > > The main reason for commit e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 > > was that some subsystems and device drivers wanted to use runtime PM > > helpers, pm_runtime_suspend() and pm_runtime_put_sync() in > > particular, for carrying out the suspend of devices in their > > .suspend() callbacks. However, as it's been determined recently, > > there are multiple reasons not to do so, inlcuding: > > > > * The caller really doesn't control the runtime PM usage counters, > > because user space can access them through sysfs and effectively > > block runtime PM. That means using pm_runtime_suspend() or > > pm_runtime_get_sync() to suspend devices during system suspend > > may or may not work. > > > > * If a driver calls pm_runtime_suspend() from its .suspend() > > callback, it causes the subsystem's .runtime_suspend() callback to > > be executed, which leads to the call sequence: > > > > subsys->suspend(dev) > > driver->suspend(dev) > > pm_runtime_suspend(dev) > > subsys->runtime_suspend(dev) > > > > recursive from the subsystem's point of view. For some subsystems > > that may actually work (e.g. the platform bus type), but for some > > it will fail in a rather spectacular fashion (e.g. PCI). In each > > case it means a layering violation. > > > > * Both the subsystem and the driver can provide .suspend_noirq() > > callbacks for system suspend that can do whatever the > > .runtime_suspend() callbacks do just fine, so it really isn't > > necessary to call pm_runtime_suspend() during system suspend. > > > > * The runtime PM's handling of wakeup devices is usually different > > from the system suspend's one, so .runtime_suspend() may simply be > > inappropriate for system suspend. > > > > * System suspend is supposed to work even if CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is > > unset. > > > > * The runtime PM workqueue is frozen before system suspend, so if > > whatever the driver is going to do during system suspend depends > > on it, that simply won't work. > > Thanks for the thorough description of all these reasons. Well, I thought I had to document them before I would forget again. > > Still, there is a good reason to allow pm_runtime_resume() to > > succeed during system suspend and resume (for instance, some > > subsystems and device drivers may legitimately use it to ensure that > > their devices are in full-power states before suspending them). > > Moreover, there is no reason to prevent runtime PM callbacks from > > being executed in parallel with the system suspend/resume .prepare() > > and .complete() callbacks and the code removed by commit > > e8665002477f0278f84f898145b1f141ba26ee26 went too far in this > > respect. On the other hand, runtime PM callbacks, including > > .runtime_resume(), must not be executed during system suspend's > > "late" stage of suspending devices and during system resume's "early" > > device resume stage. > > > > Taking all of the above into consideration, make the PM core > > acquire a runtime PM reference to every device and resume it if > > there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before executing > > the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. Make the PM core > > drop references to all devices right after executing the > > subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. Additionally, > > make the PM core disable the runtime PM framework for all devices > > during system suspend, after executing the subsystem-level .suspend() > > callbacks for them, and enable the runtime PM framework for all > > devices during system resume, right before executing the > > subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > > OK, I'm convinced. :) > > Acked-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> Cool, thanks. :-) > Minor documentation comment below... > > > Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/base/power/main.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++----- > > 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c > > +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c > > @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ static int legacy_resume(struct device * > > static int device_resume(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async) > > { > > int error = 0; > > + bool put = false; > > > > TRACE_DEVICE(dev); > > TRACE_RESUME(0); > > @@ -521,6 +522,9 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * > > if (!dev->power.is_suspended) > > goto Unlock; > > > > + pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > + put = true; > > + > > if (dev->pm_domain) { > > pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); > > error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); > > @@ -563,6 +567,10 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * > > complete_all(&dev->power.completion); > > > > TRACE_RESUME(error); > > + > > + if (put) > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > > + > > return error; > > } > > > > @@ -843,16 +851,22 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic > > int error = 0; > > > > dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async); > > - device_lock(dev); > > > > if (async_error) > > - goto Unlock; > > + return 0; > > + > > + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev); > > + if (pm_runtime_barrier(dev) && device_may_wakeup(dev)) > > + pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0); > > if (pm_wakeup_pending()) { > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > > async_error = -EBUSY; > > - goto Unlock; > > + return 0; > > } > > > > + device_lock(dev); > > + > > if (dev->pm_domain) { > > pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); > > error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); > > @@ -890,12 +904,15 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic > > End: > > dev->power.is_suspended = !error; > > > > - Unlock: > > device_unlock(dev); > > complete_all(&dev->power.completion); > > > > - if (error) > > + if (error) { > > + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); > > async_error = error; > > + } else if (dev->power.is_suspended) { > > + __pm_runtime_disable(dev, false); > > + } > > > > return error; > > } > > Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt > > @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: > > pm_runtime_set_active(dev); > > pm_runtime_enable(dev); > > > > +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the > > +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. > > +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time > > +suspend callbacks to be lost. > > + > > On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware > > or hardware operation. Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power > > states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way. Then, the system sleep > > @@ -579,6 +584,21 @@ place (in particular, if the system is n > > be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system > > suspend began in the suspended state. > > > > +The PM core does its best to reduce the probability of race conditions between > > +the runtime PM and system suspend/resume (and hibernation) callbacks by carrying > > +out the following operations: > > + > > + * During system suspend it acquires a runtime PM reference to every device > > + and resume it if there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before > > minor: s/resume/resumes/ That has been changed in the latest version: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/919622/ Thanks, Rafael
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/base/power/main.c +++ linux-2.6/drivers/base/power/main.c @@ -505,6 +505,7 @@ static int legacy_resume(struct device * static int device_resume(struct device *dev, pm_message_t state, bool async) { int error = 0; + bool put = false; TRACE_DEVICE(dev); TRACE_RESUME(0); @@ -521,6 +522,9 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * if (!dev->power.is_suspended) goto Unlock; + pm_runtime_enable(dev); + put = true; + if (dev->pm_domain) { pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); @@ -563,6 +567,10 @@ static int device_resume(struct device * complete_all(&dev->power.completion); TRACE_RESUME(error); + + if (put) + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); + return error; } @@ -843,16 +851,22 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic int error = 0; dpm_wait_for_children(dev, async); - device_lock(dev); if (async_error) - goto Unlock; + return 0; + + pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev); + if (pm_runtime_barrier(dev) && device_may_wakeup(dev)) + pm_wakeup_event(dev, 0); if (pm_wakeup_pending()) { + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); async_error = -EBUSY; - goto Unlock; + return 0; } + device_lock(dev); + if (dev->pm_domain) { pm_dev_dbg(dev, state, "power domain "); error = pm_op(dev, &dev->pm_domain->ops, state); @@ -890,12 +904,15 @@ static int __device_suspend(struct devic End: dev->power.is_suspended = !error; - Unlock: device_unlock(dev); complete_all(&dev->power.completion); - if (error) + if (error) { + pm_runtime_put_sync(dev); async_error = error; + } else if (dev->power.is_suspended) { + __pm_runtime_disable(dev, false); + } return error; } Index: linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt =================================================================== --- linux-2.6.orig/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt +++ linux-2.6/Documentation/power/runtime_pm.txt @@ -567,6 +567,11 @@ this is: pm_runtime_set_active(dev); pm_runtime_enable(dev); +The PM core always increments the run-time usage counter before calling the +->suspend() callback and decrements it after calling the ->resume() callback. +Hence disabling run-time PM temporarily like this will not cause any run-time +suspend callbacks to be lost. + On some systems, however, system sleep is not entered through a global firmware or hardware operation. Instead, all hardware components are put into low-power states directly by the kernel in a coordinated way. Then, the system sleep @@ -579,6 +584,21 @@ place (in particular, if the system is n be more efficient to leave the devices that had been suspended before the system suspend began in the suspended state. +The PM core does its best to reduce the probability of race conditions between +the runtime PM and system suspend/resume (and hibernation) callbacks by carrying +out the following operations: + + * During system suspend it acquires a runtime PM reference to every device + and resume it if there's a runtime PM resume request pending right before + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. In addition to + that it disables the runtime PM framework for every device right after + executing the subsystem-level .suspend() callback for it. + + * During system resume it enables the runtime PM framework for all devices + right before executing the subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. + Additionally, it drops references to all devices right after executing the + subsystem-level .resume() callbacks for them. + 7. Generic subsystem callbacks Subsystems may wish to conserve code space by using the set of generic power